论文部分内容阅读
目的:利用三维模型分析法,比较5种扫描仪扫描全牙列的扫描精度。方法:用Metrotom 1500计算机断层扫描仪(computed tomography,CT)扫描标准上颌树脂牙列模型作为对照组。该模型经实验组5种扫描仪(in Eos X5、D810、Ceramill MAP400、Arctica Autoscan、Cerec~AC Omnican)分别扫描3次,获取5组数据。利用Geomagic软件,将实验组数据分别与对照组数据进行匹配,测量其三维距离(three dimensional distance,3DD)、体积变化率(the rate of the volume change,RVC)和三角网格数,并进行统计分析。结果:5组重叠模型的3-DD值中,in Eos X5组和D810组相当,Arctica Autoscan组和Ceramill MAP400组相当,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);Cerec~AC Omnican组的3-DD值最大,Arctica Autoscan组和Ceramill MAP400组次之,in Eos X5组和D810组最小,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。5组重叠模型的RVC值中,Arctica Autoscan组和Ceramill MAP400组相当,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);Cerec~AC Omnican组最大,Arctica Autoscan组和Ceramill MAP400组次之,继而为D810组,in Eos X5组最小,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。三角网格数与精度无线性相关性(P>0.05)。结论:不同扫描仪的精度之间均有一定的差异;扫描全牙列时,口外扫描仪的精度高于口内扫描仪。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the scanning accuracy of five kinds of scanners with the whole dentition by using three-dimensional model analysis. METHODS: Standard maxillary resin dentition model was scanned by Metrotom 1500 computed tomography (CT). The model was scanned three times with five kinds of scanners (EOS X5, D810, Ceramill MAP400, Arctica Autoscan, Cerec ~ AC Omnican) in the experimental group, and five groups of data were obtained. Using Geomagic software, the experimental group data were respectively matched with the control group data, and the three dimensional distance (3DD), the rate of the volume change (RVC) and the number of triangular meshes were measured and statistically analysis. Results: The 3-DD values of the 5 groups of overlapping models were similar in the Eos X5 group and the D810 group, but there was no significant difference between the Arctica Autoscan group and the Ceramill MAP400 group (P> 0.05) The 3-DD value was the largest, followed by the Arctica Autoscan group and the Ceramill MAP400 group, followed by the Eos X5 group and the D810 group. The difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). There was no significant difference between the Arctica Autoscan group and the Ceramill MAP400 group (P> 0.05); the Cerec ~ AC Omnican group was the largest, followed by the Arctica Autoscan group and Ceramill MAP400 group, followed by D810 Group, the smallest in Eos X5 group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). There was no linear correlation between the number of triangles and the accuracy (P> 0.05). Conclusion: The accuracy of different scanners is different from each other. When scanning the whole dentition, the accuracy of the extraoral scanner is higher than that of the intraoral scanner.